Allowed

G.V. Subba Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2016WP/30369/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka regarded the consideration of a Form No.7A occupancy application by the Land Tribunal as a palpable error when an earlier Form No.7 application by the same applicant's mother remained pending. The court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed it to decide the matter in accordance with law, noting that the earlier application had not been rejected.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed, and the Tribunal is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law considering the pendency of the fi

G.V. Subba Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.30369 OF 2015 (LR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G.V.SUBBA RAO

¶9

SINCE DECEASED BY LRs, G.S.INDIRAMMA, D/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO, AGED 70 YEARS

¶10

SARASWATHI JAYAPRAKASH D/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO, AGED 64 YEARS

¶11

GIRIJA NAGESH D/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS

¶12

SAROJA BADARINATH D/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS

¶13

G.S.CHANDRASHKEAR S/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS

¶14

¶15

G.S.GOPALAKRISHNA RAO S/O.LATE G.V.SUBBA RAO AGED 73 YEARS

¶16

PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.30, MUSTOOR VILLAGE, GERAHALLI POST, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI.B.N.ANANTHA NARAYAN, ADV.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶21

THE LAND TRIBUNAL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101

¶22

SMT.RUKMINIYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs C.S.PUTTU RAO, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.SURYANARAYANA RAO, NO.37, SURYA PRABHA, 80 FEET ROAD, SBM COLONY, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 050

¶23

¶24

G.P. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE G.PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O MASJID ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR TOWN – 562 101

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.T.N.VISHWANATHA & SRI.T.N.RAMESH, ADVS FOR R4,

¶27

R3 – PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 2.7.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR IN CASE NO.LRF.CR.43/1999 VIDE ANNEX-J TO THE W.P.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

¶33

counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned Government Pleader.

¶34

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶35

¶36

The land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas of Ganganamidde Village, Chickaballapur Taluk was said to be a service inam land attached to the village office of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickaballapur Taluk. The petitioners were the children of late G.V.Subbarao, who was the Baraward Shanbhogue of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. The respondent No.3 had also claimed right as Baraward Shanbhogue.

¶37

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 were both held entitled for re-grant. One Smt.Venkatamma, W/o.Ganjigunte Papaiah along

¶38

with one Sri.Narayanaswamy Chetty is said to have filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the very same land mentioned above. According to the petitioners, that application came to be rejected as on 19.09.1976. Respondent No.4, who is the son of late Ganjigunte Papaiah and Smt.Venkatamma, had filed an application under Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997 seeking the occupancy rights in respect of the very same

¶39

¶40

land. The said application was said to have been transferred to the Assistant Commissioner, Chickaballapura, and the said Authority had allowed the application by an order dated 08.07.2002. The petitioners being aggrieved by that order, had challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The third respondent had also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were heard together and a common order came to be passed on 01.09.2004 and the order dated 08.07.2002 was set aside and the matter was remanded. On remand, the claim of the fourth respondent was rejected, which was again challenged in appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had allowed the same.

¶41

The petitioners challenging the same, filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.36036/2011. The said petition came to be disposed of on 12.10.2011 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.17490/2011, which came to allowed

¶42

¶43

by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 observing that, if for any reason the application filed by the mother of the fourth respondent is rejected by the Tribunal, it is for the mother of the fourth respondent and his brother to challenge the order of the Tribunal. Without doing so, Form No.7-A has been wrongly filed, which the fourth respondent could not have filed, when his mother has utilized the opportunity of filing an application in Form No.7. And this legal aspect has not been considered either by the learned Single Judge or by the Tribunal and therefore, the matter came to be remanded for a fresh consideration. Since the application filed by the mother of the fourth respondent in Form No.7, at the first instance, had been adjourned by the Tribunal, sine die , the Division Bench had directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶44

On such remand, the Tribunal has expressed its opinion that it shall consider the application filed in Form No.7A by the fourth respondent and shall pass an order considering the

¶45

¶46

application. This is a palpable error committed by the Tribunal, according to the petitioners. It is clear that Form No.7 filed in the first instance had not been rejected, but was adjourned sine die. Form No.7 was alive and had not been disposed of. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the application. As categorically observed by the Division Bench, Form No.7A could not have been considered when there was already an application filed by the mother in Form No.7. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Tribunal is not justified in its reasoning, it should have addressed the circumstance whether Form No.7, which was filed in the first instance by the mother and the fourth respondent, was rejected or was pending and if it was pending, it ought to be considered in accordance with law.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-J is quashed. The question as to whether Form No.7 filed by the fourth respondent and the mother, if pending as it was said to be kept in abeyance was required to be considered First, Form No.7A filed by

¶48

¶49

fourth respondent could not be considered if the first application was still pending. The Tribunal to decide, in accordance with law. With that direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

G.V. Subba Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.V. Subba Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M a Fairoze Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagannatha Vs the Secretary

Smt Siddamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Nirman Shelters(B) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

B a Rama Chandra S/O Appu Gowda Vs State of Karnataka